So, I downloaded ISO files of Harmy's Despecialized Editions of Star Wars and burned them to double-layer DVD-Rs. They look great, for the first half. Second half freezes every few seconds.

I lack the technical know-how to say why. My dvd burner isn't so good? Is it my cheap Sony Blu-Ray player that plays everything else just fine? Haven't tried playing them in the Xbox yet, and I will, but can anybody suggest anything? Or volunteer to burn me good copies and mail them to me?

It's (most likely) the type (And brand) of double layer DVDs you are using. DVD+R-DL discs have better playback performance in standard DVD players, compared to DVD-R-DL discs. The brand is equally important, as is the burn speed. Unfortunately, these are variables that relate specifically to the original ISO, the brand of burner, and the playback device. There is no magic bullet.

And the MAIN reason you shouldn't be using a disc player in 2014. Surely your Blu-Ray player has a USB port for playing MP4 files...I thought this was pretty standard these days (you can use Handbrake to convert the content in the ISO files to a playable MP4 file).

Slightly off topic: Aside from a few minor niggles -- Han shooting first, Luke's scream as he falls, "Bring my shuttle," the new song at the end of Jedi, maybe one or two other tiny ones -- I LIKE the special editions.

I've never understood why they're so savagely hated by Star Wars fans. Not having the originals available, THAT I understand hating, but the Special Editions? They're great! The trench run is vastly improved, Cloud City looks 100x better and more epic, the wampa scene plays out better, etc.

The Jabba scene is a bit off and the effects haven't aged well, but a part of me does like having it in there.

That said, I'll still probably download these de-specialized versions.

All three are feature-length "filmumentaries" that are made with love. They're assembled with alternate takes and scenes, some voiceover from interviews, and so on. They're fantastic, and for me are the most interesting sorta-documentaries on SW out there.

I've never understood why they're so savagely hated by Star Wars fans. Not having the originals available, THAT I understand hating, but the Special Editions? They're great!

It's quite simple -- they're just too different. It's not the fact that the Special Editions exist that enrages us -- most of those improvements actually do make sense. It's the fact that Lucas wants to pretend that the original versions don't exist anymore. And it's fucking nuts that Lucas has the nerve to tell us old-school fans that we need to stop holding on to those old versions and accept the SE's as the "only" way to remember those films. I saw those films probably close to 30 or 40 times each before Lucas tinkered with them. For better or worse, that's the way I'll always remember them. The Special Editions -- while admittedly technically superior -- are just too different to quite scratch the itch of reliving those films again. So much has been changed that they actually feel like completely different movies in a lot of key respects.

Edit:There's also the thing about Lucas taking a massive shit all over the effects artists and actors who helped those original films become the success that they are. They did amazing work (for the time) and they now have nothing to show for it since their work "no longer exists".

_________________"You know the best thing about necrophilia? You don't have to bring flowers. They're usually already there." -- George Carlin

It's quite simple -- they're just too different. It's not the fact that the Special Editions exist that enrages us -- most of those improvements actually do make sense. It's the fact that Lucas wants to pretend that the original versions don't exist anymore. And it's fucking nuts that Lucas has the nerve to tell us old-school fans that we need to stop holding on to those old versions and accept the SE's as the "only" way to remember those films. I saw those films probably close to 30 or 40 times each before Lucas tinkered with them. For better or worse, that's the way I'll always remember them. The Special Editions -- while admittedly technically superior -- are just too different to quite scratch the itch of reliving those films again. So much has been changed that they actually feel like completely different movies in a lot of key respects.

Exactly. It's like using Photoshop to erase your "dated" haircuts and clothes in old pictures and replacing them with "modern-day" ones...the main reason to flip through old pictures of yourself is because of the dated hairstyles/clothing! Watching "old" movies you grew up on, yeah, sometimes the F/X don't "hold up", and you may laugh at those mullets and brick-sized "cellular phones" from 80's and early 90's movies, but that's half the fun.

Quote:

Edit:There's also the thing about Lucas taking a massive shit all over the effects artists and actors who helped those original films become the success that they are. They did amazing work (for the time) and they now have nothing to show for it since their work "no longer exists".

Yeah...a lot of those guys have Oscars on their bookshelves that no longer mean squat because the hard, genre-defining work they did has been pasted over by other effects artists decades after the fact. Wouldn't that piss you off? Movies are a collaborative process (no matter what your thoughts might be on the "auteur theory"), and when the director makes a decision to alter aspects of the production that others worked their asses off to achieve, that's pretty shitty. I wouldn't give a shit about their being special editions of the OT...as long as the theatrical versions everyone knew by heart for decades were also preserved in the best possible quality. It's 2014, and the only versions of the unaltered OT available are non-anamorphic laserdisc prints from 1994 dumped onto DVD...as a "special feature". Gee, thanks George, you're all heart.

That's why I remain hopeful that Disney will release the unaltered OTs at some point...they'd make a mint off of disenfranchised Star Wars fans, and that would generate a great deal of goodwill that would, in turn, generate more interest in the new movies. It's win-win. Even if they had no extras whatsoever, I'd gladly shell out $20 a pop or more for remastered HD prints of the unmolested OT.

_________________I'm cold, and there are wolves after me. [distant howl]

There's also the thing about Lucas taking a massive shit all over the effects artists and actors who helped those original films become the success that they are. They did amazing work (for the time) and they now have nothing to show for it since their work "no longer exists".

What? Of all the arguments I've heard, this is the most ridiculous. Are you talking about the visual effects artists that:

a.) became incredibly wealthy during their continued employment at ILM until 2005 (when the model shop closed - after nobody else in the entire film industry wanted to pay ILM for non-CGI work)?orb.) defected from ILM right after the success of Star Wars (John Dykstra), and/or started competing companies (Boss Films), thereby severing all ties with Lucas?orc.) convinced Lucas that 1995/6 CGI was finally good enough to replace physical model effects from 1977. The same artists that produced those original effects.

Really, if I was Peter Kuran, I might be a bit pissed off - but every other visual effects artist involved in the three films has plenty of demo reel material to show for it, even in the special editions.

There's also the thing about Lucas taking a massive shit all over the effects artists and actors who helped those original films become the success that they are. They did amazing work (for the time) and they now have nothing to show for it since their work "no longer exists".

What? Of all the arguments I've heard, this is the most ridiculous. Are you talking about the visual effects artists that:

a.) became incredibly wealthy during their continued employment at ILM until 2005 (when the model shop closed - after nobody else in the entire film industry wanted to pay ILM for non-CGI work)?orb.) defected from ILM right after the success of Star Wars (John Dykstra), and/or started competing companies (Boss Films), thereby severing all ties with Lucas?orc.) convinced Lucas that 1995/6 CGI was finally good enough to replace physical model effects from 1977. The same artists that produced those original effects.

Really, if I was Peter Kuran, I might be a bit pissed off - but every other visual effects artist involved in the three films has plenty of demo reel material to show for it, even in the special editions.

Seriously, citation needed.

Let me clarify, the work they did on those movies -- the work that won Oscars and such -- "no longer exists" according to Lucas. I'm sure they have plenty of other work to be proud of. Also -- yes, all of the major players were still working at ILM in the 90's but what about the other people who worked on those movies? Are you telling me that only four or five people worked on all of those original effects from 76 to 82?

_________________"You know the best thing about necrophilia? You don't have to bring flowers. They're usually already there." -- George Carlin

Back on Topic: the only definitive "Despecialized" Edition worth downloading right now is for the original 1977 classic. It's the one he's spent the most time on and it truly is a thing to marvel at just for the restored color-timing alone. The other "Despecialized" movies are still works in progress and feature sections that are just upscaled scenes from the laserdisc copies found on the Limited Edition DVD's -- still worth having but adjust your expectations.

_________________"You know the best thing about necrophilia? You don't have to bring flowers. They're usually already there." -- George Carlin

I've never understood why they're so savagely hated by Star Wars fans. Not having the originals available, THAT I understand hating, but the Special Editions? They're great! The trench run is vastly improved, Cloud City looks 100x better and more epic, the wampa scene plays out better, etc.

Agree 100%.

I especially hate when some puffed up ass clown bitches that Greedo shooting first (which is, admittedly, stupid) completely changes the nature of Han's character. Ugh. No, it doesn't, unless your contention is that this scene is the single piece of character development Han has in the entire movie.

I'd love high quality copies of the original theatrical versions as much as the next guy (probably more, actually) but it's just not something that's really worth going to the mat for so hard and so often. I also completely understand the misguided sense of ownership fans feel over the movies they grew up with but, at the end of the day, it's just that: a feeling. Nothing more.

I will edit out all of Vader's scenes and replace it entirely with this:

I will sneak this into some Millenium Falcon scene

It's very sad hearing 3PO lament his lack of a heart. "R2, do you really think I don't have a heart?"

Thematically, it will tie in to the finale, which will replace the throne room scene with Star Wars Holiday Life Day ending, complete with Carrie Fischer singing. 3PO once again shares his feelings on not having feelings or being human. Poor droid.

I will share it on torrent sites. Unlabeled, no warning that there's anything different or special about this cut.

If I'm up for it, I'll put some muppets/Star Wars crossover in there too.

I ended up downloading a 2.5 hour cut of all three prequels combined together into one movie. Basically it has only the Maul fight from 1, then a really short amount of Clones - about 45-50 minutes worth or so - and the rest is Sith.

Thinking I might try that 4, 5, prequels, 6 watching order people talk about using this version.

I've never understood why they're so savagely hated by Star Wars fans. Not having the originals available, THAT I understand hating, but the Special Editions? They're great! The trench run is vastly improved, Cloud City looks 100x better and more epic, the wampa scene plays out better, etc.

Agree 100%.

I especially hate when some puffed up ass clown bitches that Greedo shooting first (which is, admitted, stupid) completely changes the nature of Han's character. Ugh. No, it doesn't, unless your contention is that this scene is the single piece of character development Han has in the entire movie.

The Special Editions are an end to a long history of changes that were made after the original 1977 release.

I watched the projected "original" over 200 times.

My friend and I snuck an audio tape recorder into the theater during the first month or so of the original release date.

We covertly recorded the entire movie on audio - then played it over and over during the times we couldn't see the movie in the theater.

To get to that 200+ mark, it took many months.

Initially I would sit in the theater, hide in the bathroom during the changeover, and watch the movie again and again and again.

Spending the entire day in the theater - and sometimes spending much of the night in the theater, as well.

But, it still took close to a couple years to get the viewing count above 200.

During that time I noticed changes, subtle changes yes, but still changes were happening.

Threepio explaining the blueprints of the Death Star as R2 brought them up on a monitor, the Stormtrooper calling for the blast doors to be opened as they pursue Han and Chewie, etc., etc., etc.

All admittedly minor changes.

None of them reduced the impact of Han deftly and coldly dealing with Greedo.

The Han Shot First debacle may not change Han's character - but it does change our perception of him and it definitely changes any first experience of him by a neophyte viewer. It changes the impact I felt when I first saw it play out and it will forever change how future viewers see it, as well.

That first shot is pivotal.

It may not be the only character-building moment for Solo, but it definitely is iconic, powerful, and jarring.

At least, it was.

Now it is just a point of fan ire.

I can understand the anger - especially if you had not had the opportunity to memorize the entire first movie as I did or experience the movie the way I did.

I would place Han shooting first on par with if Coppola had replaced Chef's head with a cut comm handset in Apocalypse Now!, sure a cut communication handset still conveys that Col. Kurtz has severed Willard's connection with the higher-ups, but it doesn't have the same impact as the bloody head. It removes how we see Col. Kurtz.

Is Chef's decapitated head so overwhelmingly important that it would ruin Apocalypse Now!?

No, probably not.

So, yeah, maybe Greedo shooting first doesn't ruin Star Wars, but it mutes a major impact that I felt in 1977 as an 11 year old kid flabbergasted as this guy blasted a fucking bounty hunter in the most awesome sly and nonchalant way possible.

I doubt others would understand that which is why I am not advocating on a daily basis for Han shooting first. I actually believe it is already ruined - the scene can never ever be regained now that we have seen Lucas' utterly unfathomable reason to pussy it out.

Except the 1992 edits of the film (which special edition haters consider "original") was made available on DVD for those who wanted it. So, you can be there any time you want.

Empire is the movie I watched the most as a kid (and it was my introduction to Star Wars). When I do get nostalgic, I pop in the non-special edition (I have a line doubler, so it plays back at 960i) - and it's all good. But I won't turn down an opportunity to watch the special editions. My brain just blocks out the silly changes.

Star Wars was being changed almost from the moment it first hit theaters.

I can't blame Lucas for trying to bring the movie up to his modern vision once the tech became available to him to do it. Authors have been doing the same sort of thing for ages. The Hobbit, for instance, underwent three major revisions over the years, and almost a fourth. The version that people originally read is long since gone, unless you pay a lot for some early printings.

I literally cannot go into a book store and buy The Hobbit that people read in 1937 (or, for that matter, the Lord of the Rings people read in the 1950s).

Is Stephen King's original Stand even still available, or is it only the uncut version now? Plus the ton of period edits he did for later editions, updating pop culture references, technology, etc.

With Star Wars, some of Lucas' changes sucked, some were great, and the vast majority were just "whatever" and are neither good nor bad. They just gave them a coat of polish so they'd look more modern.

The ONLY thing I'd complain about is that a strong copy of the historic original isn't widely available.

But fans have managed to get pretty close. It's out there for people who want them.

So basically, I don't worry much about it.

I GET why folks like Pender lament not being able to access that original in the best form possible. I totally get that.

What I don't get is why (other) folks froth and rage at Lucas as if he's some sort of horrible villain. Did we all forget that he's the one who CREATED this thing we love? We wouldn't have it in the first place if it wasn't for him!

He's been so absurdly generous with the fan community over the years, too, encouraging fan films, fan edits, giving them access to film resources, and so on.

And yet vast swaths of the online community still talk about him like he's only a few rungs below Hitler.

What I don't get is why (other) folks froth and rage at Lucas.... like he's only a few rungs below Hitler.

Below?

Wouldn't you mean above?

Seriously, isn't the majority of internet rage seething hyperbolic diatribes created by zit juice tainted keyboards manned by self-absorbed teenagers that hunker in basements of mothers across North America?

Relating internet rage to the real world just doesn't make sense.

98% of the internet rage would be muted during actual contact between an average rager and Lucas.

"My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.

I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I've come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.

The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.

A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.

These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.

I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.

I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.

The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.

There are those who say American law is sufficient. That's an outrage! It's not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of "The Maltese Falcon?" Why are films cut up and butchered?

Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.

I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art--as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities."

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.- George Lucas 1988

But I won't turn down an opportunity to watch the special editions. My brain just blocks out the silly changes.

You know, this is where I'm at as well. Those movies play so much on Spike and such that I almost never get the itch to watch them independently anymore. So the Special Editions get way more play these days in my house thanks to that. But on the off chance I do watch them independently I do just zoom-in the laserdisc scans from the Limited Edition DVDs on my Xbox 360 (which is oddly the last player I own that satisfactorily zooms in non-anamorphic material). I do plan on dedicating a USB drive to Harmy's Despecialized Editions soon, though.

_________________"You know the best thing about necrophilia? You don't have to bring flowers. They're usually already there." -- George Carlin

Incidentally -- with all this talk of preserving the original unaltered trilogy in mind -- there are similar fan efforts currently underway to preserve the Star Wars Special Editions as they appeared in 1997 (minus the 2004 and 2011 alterations). That's just crazy. I wish I had that kind of time on my hands.

But this highlights a very interesting reality -- for some people, the 1997 Special Editions ARE the definitive editions of these films.

_________________"You know the best thing about necrophilia? You don't have to bring flowers. They're usually already there." -- George Carlin

Incidentally -- with all this talk of preserving the original unaltered trilogy in mind -- there are similar fan efforts currently underway to preserve the Star Wars Special Editions as they appeared in 1997 (minus the 2004 and 2011 alterations). That's just crazy. I wish I had that kind of time on my hands.

But this highlights a very interesting reality -- for some people, the 1997 Special Editions ARE the definitive editions of these films.

Doesn't that just underline the inherent flaw in "updating" a movie's visual effects? Back in '97, the CG touchups to the OT looked pretty cool, but even those F/X look awfully dated less than two decades later. Where does it end? Movies should reflect what was technologically possible at the time of their release.

_________________I'm cold, and there are wolves after me. [distant howl]

Doesn't that just underline the inherent flaw in "updating" a movie's visual effects?

I don't think it does, no. If anything, it has helped ensure Star Wars continue to be relevant to new generations in a way most other sci-fi films fail to thanks to their aging visuals.

The issue here remains the availability of the original, or lack thereof, not the updated versions that came out later. From a film history perspective, they ought to be available in the best form possible.

But that doesn't mean updated versions are an inherently bad thing.

Quote:

Movies should reflect what was technologically possible at the time of their release.

Eh. They are art forms and pieces of history, yes, but they're also entertainment. Better printing technology means we can now have better versions of classic books. Books written 200 years ago don't need to reflect the lesser production qualities of yesteryear. Modern mastering technology means we can enhance older music recordings and present them in a clear, crisp way that wasn't possible 50 or 60 or 70 years ago. You certainly wouldn't argue that music written and recorded in 1933 should reflect what was technologically possible at the time of its release. If it's possible to take those masters and clean them up and make the album sound fresh and modern, that's a good thing.

I mean, hell, you watch digitally restored movies, don't you? You don't actually want them to be limited to what was technologically possible at the time of their home release, right?

Again, the issue isn't that updated versions exist. There is nothing wrong with that. The same thing has been happening with others forms of art & entertainment for all eternity. The issue is that excellent copies of the original version of Star Wars are not readily available. For history's sake alone they should be preserved and available.

But I don't think the special editions themselves are a big deal. If anything, they have helped the original trilogy from falling into nostalgia for 40somethings, keeping them relevant to younger people, too.

Oddly, I have no problem with this effort with restoring the 97 Special Editions -- I don't attach nearly the same amount of significance to it as I do the originals but I think it's important just the same. And the reasons are the same as the ones for as I have for the originals -- preservation. A lot of people worked their asses off to make sure those movies looked spectacular for newer audiences and those efforts deserve to be preserved in some fashion. As Shoe said, the SE's came at pretty critical time when the franchise could have slipped into purely nostalgia. For better or worse, they should available right alongside every other version out there. The availability of every version of Close Encounters is great example of this being done right.

_________________"You know the best thing about necrophilia? You don't have to bring flowers. They're usually already there." -- George Carlin

I mean, hell, you watch digitally restored movies, don't you? You don't actually want them to be limited to what was technologically possible at the time of their home release, right?

Restored. Restored. Not "altered."

I largely agree with you, Shoe, that the real offense Lucas is guilty of is trying (admittedly, off and on) to suppress the original versions, not that he made the special editions. The special editions were in bad taste. Making the originals unavailable is arguably unethical.

But this is a bad argument. Restorations put things BACK the way they were, as close as possible. Even audio remasters go back to the original recordings and clean them up. They don't add things (and when people do, as Alan Douglas did to Hendrix's stuff, people get pissed like they have at Lucas). Restoration is what Harmy is doing, not what Lucas did in the 90's.

But this is a bad argument. Restorations put things BACK the way they were, as close as possible. Even audio remasters go back to the original recordings and clean them up. They don't add things (and when people do, as Alan Douglas did to Hendrix's stuff, people get pissed like they have at Lucas). Restoration is what Harmy is doing, not what Lucas did in the 90's.

This is not necessarily true. It usually is, absolutely, but not always. For example, with Let It Be Naked, Paul McCartney "restored" Let It Be to what he says he initially intended. In other cases, audio mixes can differ on restored albums that reveal details we hadn't heard before, sometimes even revealing things that weren't in previous mixes - effectively adding things not present on the original release. Remastering can itself change the sound of a record and make it distinct from what came before. Mono records are released in stereo. Stereo records get the surround treatment. These changes fundamentally alter the way a record sounds.

There are some records that have had their track sequencing changed over the years, or that had tracks added when being remastered/restored and re-released. This also changes the nature of these records. Or differences between international versions, where over time one version becomes the "default" over the years, one supplanting the other.

And there are countless examples of albums that differ between the vinyl version and CD version. Different tracks, slightly different mixes, etc. As vinyl fades away, that means people are only hearing one version of the record in question - and it's not necessarily the original version. When that CD gets remastered for an anniversary release, it might not be the original release of the record people are hearing, it's the CD version, which differs from the initial release.

You get it with films, too. As an example, Welles' Touch of Evil was not just cleaned up for DVD, it was significantly re-edited to fit the way Welles wanted the movie to be seen. The film was never actually seen in the version we see it now. It had been initially released in a much different form, but has been restored to fit Welles' initial vision.

Which Blade Runner, or Close Encounters, or Once Upon a Time in America is the real one? Kubrick chopped out portions of 2001 seen only in its earliest screenings. We can never again see that version. Is the original the "real" one or the one we've been watching the last few decades?

Restoration isn't always purely about cleaning something up so it looks/sounds nice. There are times when either the process changes the nature of the finished product, or when the people doing the restoration are trying to recapture an earlier vision that was never officially released. That is exactly what Lucas is claiming to have done with the SEs.

Whether or not we BUY the idea that he really wanted the movies this way all along can be debated, of course. The guy has often engaged in revisionist history, after all.

I'm just saying that altering something when attempting to bring it up to modern standards is not unheard of. It's somewhat common.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum